Your 10 most average games

[equalsign]

It seems like you're getting a little too into this. I included the U.S. bit on my grades line because I know things are different in Europe. Reviews from that side of the globe tend to be more critical, so why not read theirs?

I know a pretty good mix of people that buy games. In my experience, for the average consumer the review score doesn't matter much. People usually know what games they're buying new (or used/discounted) before the reviews come out.

A point you might be overlooking is that review sites skip many of the utter crap games that would otherwise tip the scale the other direction. So that 7/10 average is the average of very few crap games, some poor games, most good games, and all great games. Maybe if reviews sites covered EVERY game the average scores would look more how you want them to. Examples:

http://www.gamerankings.com/ds/956047-p ... index.html
http://www.gamestats.com/objects/482/482304/#reviews
http://www.gamerankings.com/ds/979614-t ... index.html
(^no reviews)

I don't think you're going to convince me that there's an issue with 7 being the average though. In the end it really doesn't actually matter, and that's the point I'll probably exit this argument on.

Edit: read your post

[jfrost]

As General_Norris said, there's no reason why the quality of a game should be linear, so neither should necessarily the scores.

[Original_Name]

It's honestly just the way I see it. I had more games for the Mega Drive than any other console back in the day and platformer where by far my favourite genre in the early 90's but it I was going to pick one that would be a resounding "meh" it would be Ristar. I honestly enjoyed games which have a much lower production value a lot more, games like Taz Mania, Cool Spot, Tiny Toons: Busters Hidden Treasure, Tinhead and Wiz 'n Liz are all games I'd rate higher than Ristar which honestly I never finished because I just didn't care. My favourite playformers where Sonic 2, Sonic 3 & Knuckles, Addams Family, Kid Chameleon, Mega Man: The Wily Wars, and Lion King. Outside the Mega Drive I found the Donkey Kong Country series and that probably became my favourite platformer series outside of Sonic. There are some games that are well loved classics such as Ristar and Decap Attack which just did nothing for me... I found them just average.

A lot of the games you mention there, Aero the Acrobat, Bubsy II, Chuck Rock, Toki: Going Ape Spit, and Zero the Kamikaze Squirrel are games I'd rate below Ristar. Along side others such as Boogerman, Ren & Stimpy: Stimpy's Invention, Greendog, and Alex Kidd in the Enchanted Castle. I'm not claiming Ristar is a bad game. I'm claiming it's smack bang in the middle of the Mega Drive platformers library, and if we include other consoles platformers both bad and good, it's still in the middle... I enjoy the "average" game. Average doesn't mean bad, it's means average, the middle of the road. Hell I enjoyed Boogerman and Greendog and they're quite definately below average.

Alright, no hard feelings. You've definitely elaborated... while I can't say I really understand why Ristar in particular would elicit that response in the bottomless pit of excruciatingly average Genesis platformers, clearly that's how you feel. To flip it over, I've always thought that Donkey Kong Country was just slightly above average, and I only ever played it more than a few times past my youth because other people made me feel like I had to. So the rest of the world definitely disagrees with my tastes there.

[TornadoCreator]

It seems like you're getting a little too into this. I included the U.S. bit on my grades line because I know things are different in Europe. Reviews from that side of the globe tend to be more critical, so why not read theirs?

I know a pretty good mix of people that buy games. In my experience, for the average consumer the review score doesn't matter much. People usually know what games they're buying new (or used/discounted) before the reviews come out.

A point you might be overlooking is that review sites skip many of the utter crap games that would otherwise tip the scale the other direction. So that 7/10 average is the average of very few crap games, some poor games, most good games, and all great games. Maybe if reviews sites covered EVERY game the average scores would look more how you want them to. Examples:

http://www.gamerankings.com/ds/956047-p ... index.html
http://www.gamestats.com/objects/482/482304/#reviews
http://www.gamerankings.com/ds/979614-t ... index.html
(^no reviews)

I don't think you're going to convince me that there's an issue with 7 being the average though. In the end it really doesn't actually matter, and that's the point I'll probably exit this argument on.

Edit: read your post

Do you honestly think that "Mary-Kate and Ashley: Sweet 16, Licensed to Drive" on the PS2 is worthy of the 5.6 out of 10 it got on GameStats or the 53% it got on Metacritic?

By definition that means that this game is better than 53% of all games out there... which is bullshit. It's not even close, it's a 3 out of 10 (30%) at best and that's allowing for shite like Sonic '06, Mindjack and Superman 64.

I don't know why you're defending this system I really don't, do you like being lied to by corporations that artificially inflate the rating of video games by rediculous amounts just to avoid being fired because the reviewers are being paid indirectly by the same people who make the damn games? I hate being lied too and I can't think of any better way to explain that the current review system doesn't work. Honestly, with the exception of Blistered Thumbs, Destructoid and Giant Bomb which are small fry reviewers really... the big reviewers give rediculous reviews.

Why don't we look at one of the best examples of this broken system shall we - Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, a game who's developer probably put more time and effort into advertising on every gaming site around than they did on the actual game. Kane & Lynch is an awful game, bad controls, exceptionally short, boring storyline... it's just plain bad. But what do the game sites say about it. Remember all these sites accept advertising from IO interactive... so did it effect their reviews.

GameTrailers - 8.0/10

The right combination of gameplay elements and design decisions make Kane and Lynch easy to recommend to crime junkies and anyone who enjoys a little therapeutic videogame violence. A well-executed plot really makes the game, while the multiplayer additions add replay value and variety.

IGN - 7.0/10

Kane & Lynch is a game that many people will play through and enjoy simply because of the forceful story and characters.

1UP - 7.5/10

We rarely see scenarios and story structure this good in a game

Planet Xbox - 7.7/10

The already strong story is helped along the way by some really good voice acting and a fantastic musical soundtrack that fits the game perfectly.

and let's not forget
Gamer's Temple - 8.3/10

Kane and Lynch is quite a good crime drama experience and serves as a plausible move away from the Hitman stealth series that IO Interactive is very well known for.

not content with a rediculously high score, they plug IO's previous games as well in the review... I'm shocked they can speak with he collective cocks of IO's board of directors down their throats.

But while we're here, let's take a look at GameSpot...

GameSpot - 6.0/10

Kane & Lynch: Dead Men is a premise with promise, and if you've been waiting patiently for a game to really dive into the whole "crew-based heist tale" concept, you might be able to look past some of the story flaws. But when you consider the nearly ridiculous number of extremely high-quality shooters available recently, there's not much room for something like Kane & Lynch, even taking into account the somewhat unique nature of its story. That said, the multiplayer is a smart idea that's worth seeing.

This review got Jeff Gerstmann FIRED!!!

Here's a couple of reviews by someone who didn't have IO Interactive signing their paycheck.

NTSC-uk - 3.0/10

Being blunt, Kane and Lynch: Dead Men is a sickly mess of a game with the multitude of negatives undermining every positive.

Destructoid - 3.0/10

All in all, Kane and Lynch is a bad game. With characters like Kane and Lynch, we should have seen more variety in the plot and gameplay -- with developers like IO Interactive, we should have seen better shooting mechanics and level design.

I think that says it all really doesn't it... but do you think I'm going to stop there... Am I shite...

According to this rating, here's a list of games tha GameTrailers thought where not as good as Kane and Lynch.

X-Men Origins: Wolvering - 7.2
Starfox 64 3D - 7.3
Dark Sector - 7.3
Armoured Core 4 - 7.3
Hydro Thunder Hurricane - 7.4
Titan Quest - 7.4
Virtua Tennis 4 - 7.5
Just Cause - 7.6
Silent Hill: Origins - 7.7
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - 7.8
Metro 2033 - 7.8
The Conduit - 7.8
Trine - 7.8
Dead Rising - 7.8
Castlevania: Lords Of Shadow - 7.9
Oh and apparently it's on par with Devil May Cry 3 - 8.0

WHAT!!!! Just FUCKING WHAT!!!!!

Have I not proven my case yet, this is not good enough...
I have played every single one of the games I've listed there and they're ALL considerably better than Kane and Lynch, but they didn't pay for advertising did they, silly buggers.

The only reason the average is 7/10 is because you're contractually obliged to give every game a 7 out of 10 unless it's a damn indie title if you're a reviewer now. Part of me wishes I was a reviewer just so I could review games fairly and skew those damn metacritic results somewhere closer towards sanity.

All in all what I'm saying is the bad games are being reviewed. They're being given 5's and 6's when they should be being given 2's and 3's which are almost never given out, and the bloated never-ending list of 7's and 8's should be stretched out to 4's, 5's, 6's, 7's and 8's ... and while we're at it, Super Mario Galaxy doesn't deserve a 97% on Metacritic either, it's not that bloody good. Reviewers can you stop sucking off Nintendo while we're at it as well please.

[TornadoCreator]

As General_Norris said, there's no reason why the quality of a game should be linear, so neither should necessarily the scores.

You're making a fatal assumption with this argument... You're assuming the following.

1/10<------Bad Games------>5/10<------Good Games------>10/10

This is a painfully simplistic way of looking at things. Just because the average is good doesn't mean that the average deserves a 7/10 it just means that 5/10 is still good. It's entirely possible and in fact, it is the case that a 3/10 game can be enjoyable to certain people just like how many people will still enjoy a 2 star movie. The whole point of the scale is that we actually have

1/10<---Bad Game------Average Game------Good Game--->10/10

A game rated 4.9 is not the spawn of satan but it is extremely average. Average by it's definition means the middle, this doesn't mean it has to be the exactly mid-way point between The Orange Box and Superman 64, it means it needs to be a perfect middle-ground, a game that shows what the majority of games are like today in quality. Half the games released today should be less than 5.0, half the games should be better than 5.0... if the average quality of all games goes up half the games still get less than 5.0 and half still get more than 5.0, because we're not living in a bubble and the overall quality of the medium isn't what we're testing here, we're reviewing the game in relation to the other games of it's time, genre and medium... that's why the average should be and is 5.0, and the only reason games don't get rated like this is because reviewers are sell-out. Simple as that.

[Jmustang1968]

I 5.3 rating doesnt mean it is better than 53% of other games. By their ratings, it just means it is better than any other game that is rated under a 5.3.

Reviews are subjective and dependent on the reviewer and their tastes. A score is just a quick gauge. To really get value out of a review, you should read the review and put things in context.

Some games are reduced in score for adding extra stuff that they might not have done that well or that polished on. I have seen that happen often.

[AppleQueso]

TornadoCreator, I'm not sure if you realize this, but in many school disctricts in the US, a score of 70 is considered 'passing'. It kinda gets lodged in people's minds subconsciously that 70 = barely pass or average. I don't think it has much to do with game reviewers being sell-outs. I'm not sure if its necessarily this grading system that does this, or if there's some other subconscious reason why we associate 7/10 or 70/100 as 'average', but it happens.

A nice example is game reviewers who give ratings out of 4. In almost all cases, you'll find that 2/4 is considered average. Out of 5? You'll see plenty of 2.5s and 3s and such. Have those same reviewers start using a scale of 10 and you'll notice that they start giving out a lot of 7/10s as opposed to 5/10s.

Metacritic converts ALL scores to _/100 though, and that kinda screws things up.

Ideally, they'd do what Rotten Tomatoes does. Convert all reviews to a simple positive/negative binary and pump out a percentage from that.

But yeah, we're not talking about reviewers being sell-outs, we're talking about weird number associations that a lot of people subconsciously have.

Publishers bribing publications for good reviews is a totally different issue altogether though. I don't blame individual reviewers for wanting to keep their jobs, I blame publications for actually allowing this bribery to take place.

[Erik_Twice]

Just because the average is good doesn't mean that the average deserves a 7/10 it just means that 5/10 is still good.

Dude. The average gets what the reviewer decides. Because it's his own review and his own scale. You are getting worked up on the silliest thing imaginable.

If I want I can rank games on a logaritmic scale and it would be exactly as valid. Or what about an exponential scale? All of them work and they are not better than the other.

Hell, now that I think about it my own AAA->D scale closely represents the square root, with higher quality having more ratings that lowe quality. And it's easy to understand too.

this doesn't mean it has to be the exactly mid-way point between The Orange Box and Superman 64, it means it needs to be a perfect middle-ground, a game that shows what the majority of games are like today in quality.

Art criticism that doesn't focus on anything but the work itself is bad criticism.

I have no desire for art criticism to go back centuries of development. Specially since it's already a field constrained by subjective bias and human limitations enough so as to guess "what the majority of games are like today in quality".

[isiolia]

TornadoCreator, I'm not sure if you realize this, but in many school disctricts in the US, a score of 70 is considered 'passing'. It kinda gets lodged in people's minds subconsciously that 70 = barely pass or average. I don't think it has much to do with game reviewers being sell-outs. I'm not sure if its necessarily this grading system that does this, or if there's some other subconscious reason why we associate 7/10 or 70/100 as 'average', but it happens.

The thing with the letter grade system is that it's not evenly distributed across the 0-100% scale.

A 'C' technically is the middle grade (A B C D F). It's more that 0-59 are all 'F' that screws it up.

I think it's definitely why you see the 7 or 70% expectation though, at least in the U.S.

Like you mentioned, you use something like a 5-star system, and the ratings/reactions fall a lot more in line with what you expect.

[NintendoLegend]

Just because the average is good doesn't mean that the average deserves a 7/10 it just means that 5/10 is still good.

Dude. The average gets what the reviewer decides. Because it's his own review and his own scale.

Isn't that part of the point, though? Pointing out the frustration of review scales suddenly becoming so subjective and practically post-modern?

You are getting worked up on the silliest thing imaginable.

I am going to go ahead and butt in here and just simply say that there are far sillier things. To most people, game rankings/scaling/rating/etc. may not mean much, but some of us are devoting a lot of time and energy into reviews.

/twocents